Poker-AI.org

Re: Board Structure

2013-04-12T08:55:04+00:00

It perfectly works. Thanks!

Statistics: Posted by Romesnil — Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:55 am

Re: Board Structure

2013-04-12T07:54:15+00:00

What spears said.
+ a download section is in the planning.

Statistics: Posted by Coffee4tw — Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:54 am

Re: Board Structure

2013-04-12T06:10:19+00:00

- Right click on the link
- Save Link as..
- Rename the file to xyz.zip
- Unzip

Statistics: Posted by spears — Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:10 am

Re: Board Structure

2013-04-11T21:56:19+00:00

The only one place I knew to download SNG-Testbed was in the old forum at the following address:
http://poker-ai.org/archive/www.pokerai ... &sk=t&sd=a

But the link seems broken. Is there any other place to download it ? Or can someone upload it again ?

I think a download section like the old ftp could be really valuable...

Statistics: Posted by Romesnil — Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:56 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-04-10T16:34:48+00:00

bob101 wrote:

There was talk in the old forum of creating a test server where people could test the bots against each other.

There is a plan to provide that in the future. For now you'll have to make due with the testbeds that are out there: SNG-Testbed, opentestbed or if you can still find it PokerAcademy.

Blub478 wrote:

What about the ppl that do not have a holdem AI but for instance a 7 card stud AI?

There is no plan on granting access to restricted forums on any metrics such as beating a baseline bot. It's based on individual applications and then evaluation of your contribution in the public forum.

Statistics: Posted by Coffee4tw — Wed Apr 10, 2013 4:34 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-04-10T12:26:48+00:00

What about the ppl that do not have a holdem AI but for instance a 7 card stud AI?

Statistics: Posted by Blub478 — Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-04-10T12:18:35+00:00

I have an idea but will take a long time to implement.

There was talk in the old forum of creating a test server where people could test the bots against each other.

So create an online test bed that people can play against each other or built in bots. Have a leader board and the higher up on the leader board you are the more access you get in the forums. So maybe to get access to level 1 you have to at least beat the inbuilt bots.

Bob

Statistics: Posted by bob101 — Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:18 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-17T15:42:04+00:00

Alright ! Thanks for the tag idea

Statistics: Posted by Romesnil — Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-17T15:33:58+00:00

Romesnil wrote:

So maybe a three subforums structure could be a solution: General (overlap the two other ones) , Exploitive and Equilibrium ? Or did I miss your point ?

We are not about to granulize the forums even more, less subforums is better than more.
If you wish to distinctly mark your thread you can just use a clear title and/or tags such as [EQUILIBRIUM] or [EXPLOITIVE]. I don't want to force that on anyone though so it's not a rule. Another valuable tag might be [ABSTRACTION] since that's orthogonal to the previous two.

Statistics: Posted by Coffee4tw — Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:33 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-17T15:05:09+00:00

Heuristics wrote:

I have to voice my strong opposition concerning this suggestion.

I really dislike this attitude, to be frank. It will stifle the exchange of ideas. It's an insurmountable fact that some people will contribute more than others. By "privatizing" the exchange of ideas, you will just lead to a more stale & inactive community - on top of its exclusiveness. Some people may never even come up with an idea to share, because they were never inspired by the greats of experienced botters. That's not the spirit of exchange that this site should seek to promote.

In short, I think this will do more harm than good. I don't believe you have much to lose from sharing the ideas, but there is potentially a lot to gain. If you really want to exchange ideas in a controlled way, you can always do it in private messages or somewhere else.

Your assumption is that everyone is willing to share the same amount of information in a public forum compared to a private forum and that's wrong in my opinion. Take this current example: I have worked on a new card/board abstraction technique which seems way better than the current ones. It took me a lot of time from concept over implementation to evaluation. Given I am a GTO freak, sharing this in a public forum would be a dominated strategy: people who never contributed something (for whatever reason) will be able to use the concept in their bots and improve it "for free" - possibly reducing my edge in the games. So why should I share it?
A private forum however, assuming only people who contributed stuff too, gets me something back: I can use concepts/ideas from others and those people are more likely to give valuable feedback and possibly improve my idea.

The same situation exists with poker players discussing hands/strategies. There are a lot of forums that offer these kinds of discussions and its really helpful if you start out with. However, as higher you play, you won't find a lot of valuable input in public forums anymore: all good highstakes players build similar private structures to discuss these things only with people that also contribute.

And to make it clear: it doesnt mean that everything which is really bot relevant should be private: you can still find all the basic stuff to build a solid bot in the public forum and then go from there; its more about the advanced stuff and if someone wants to have access to it, why shouldn't he "pay" with a contribution?

Statistics: Posted by proud2bBot — Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:05 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-17T14:34:28+00:00

I think that ideas are worthless and just worrying about that would be stupid (mostly).

northcroft wrote:

Coffee4tw wrote:

I don't think there is going to be a general restricted forum until we see the need for it.

Pretty please? I recall an individual on the old site bringing up several ideas about a bots architecture that 1) I have never seen mentioned together and 2) I had already implemented in my bot. I really wanted to respond but the idea of having that much information publicly available about my bot is just unacceptable to me. I think that the inherent value in a restricted access fourm is for the topics members feel are too sensitive for the public fourm but not worth taking to your grave.

But this is a very good point actually. Making the the implementation details of your bot more private by limiting the people who see what you (or anyone else) is talking about in the forums.

Statistics: Posted by Kratt — Sun Mar 17, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-17T13:50:55+00:00

Heuristics wrote:

Romesnil wrote:

I have difficulties to see the continuum in bipolar values . Anyway, I agree that some topics could overlap between the two strategies. So maybe a three subforums structure could be a solution: General (overlap the two other ones) , Exploitive and Equilibrium ? Or did I miss your point ?

Well you kinda seem to say that a strategy is either exploitive or balanced, while I'm saying that a strategy always has a exploitive and a balanced side, which are in an inverse relation with each other. Big difference.

I don't agree with you. If you compute a Nash Equilibrium strategy, your bot is surely not exploitive ! On the other way, a maximal strategy again a specific opponent is far away from equilibrium (unless your opponent play an equilibrium strategy). What you are talking about seems to me a meta-strategy balancing between both of them. In this case, you could read topics in the three subforums I proposed

Statistics: Posted by Romesnil — Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:50 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-17T12:13:53+00:00

Romesnil wrote:

Well you kinda seem to say that a strategy is either exploitive or balanced, while I'm saying that a strategy always has a exploitive and a balanced side, which are in an inverse relation with each other. Big difference.

Statistics: Posted by Heuristics — Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:13 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-17T11:04:14+00:00

Statistics: Posted by Romesnil — Sun Mar 17, 2013 11:04 am

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-17T10:47:31+00:00

Romesnil wrote:

About the board structure, can the AI Research forum be divided in two sub-forums: Equilibrium and exploitive strategy ? I think it may be clearer to follow discussions according to the strategy we are implementing.

I don't agree on that one, either . Those two strategies are definitely not mutually exclusive. You can have various variations, from boot-time decision between the two, to very fine distinction in very deep levels of the decision tree. It's more of a continuum even on the decision itself - I would even consider it a bipolar value of very exploitive on one side, and very balanced on the other.

Statistics: Posted by Heuristics — Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:47 am

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-17T10:41:54+00:00

Heuristics wrote:

I'm agree with you. But as private ideas exchange is still possible, why not let people sharing these ideas on private forum. You (or newer botters) gain the possibility to get access to the private forums and to discussions history following the rules to grant the access.

About the board structure, can the AI Research forum be divided in two sub-forums: Equilibrium and exploitive strategy ? I think it may be clearer to follow discussions according to the strategy we are implementing.

Statistics: Posted by Romesnil — Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:41 am

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-17T07:23:32+00:00

proud2bBot wrote:

northcroft wrote:

Coffee4tw wrote:

I don't think there is going to be a general restricted forum until we see the need for it.

+1. In addition, I think its actually better for sharing. I'm not talking about trivial things like a preflop equity table with is already publicly available. However, to be honest, there are some things I wouldn't share in public forum, but would consider sharing in the private forum, for example code where a lot of effort went into or ideas/concepts that are currently not used but improve the state of the art significantly. The reason is that one spends a lot of time to get the stuff working. Sharing makes it available to all others instantly, while sharing in a private forum it's only available to the people that also contribute significant things, so you get something back.

Statistics: Posted by Heuristics — Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:23 am

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-17T01:08:41+00:00

Point taken. I'll set something up this week.

Statistics: Posted by Coffee4tw — Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:08 am

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-16T16:55:38+00:00

northcroft wrote:

Coffee4tw wrote:

I don't think there is going to be a general restricted forum until we see the need for it.

Statistics: Posted by proud2bBot — Sat Mar 16, 2013 4:55 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-16T11:26:52+00:00

Coffee4tw wrote:

I don't think there is going to be a general restricted forum until we see the need for it.

Statistics: Posted by northcroft — Sat Mar 16, 2013 11:26 am

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-15T23:31:12+00:00

Thanks everyone for your insight and please continue to contribute to this thread.

However, at this point we feel pretty good with the current structure and our decision to make private forums a matter of case-by-case basis, the way development labs were handled before. I don't think there is going to be a general restricted forum until we see the need for it.

Statistics: Posted by Coffee4tw — Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-15T23:29:11+00:00

Heuristics wrote:

I think there is a board missing that would be appropriate for stuff like hand evaluation. It's not quite online botting, it's not quite AI or research, is it?

Maybe just a board about general bot programming? Without the online thingy?

Currently that would go in AI Research. That forum is for anything that is not necessarily bot related but related to creating strategies for poker and generally researching poker.
Online botting however is everything botting related. If you are not doing it online, what is your bot for? So essentially we could call the forums this too:
AI Research = Brain / Strategy / Poker
Online Botting = Scraper / Management / etc

Statistics: Posted by Coffee4tw — Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:29 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-15T13:05:36+00:00

regarding the levels: how about a low-rules approach: the admins just select members to level x when they see that their contributions are valuable. Yes, it's obviously subjective, but other 'hard facts' like number of posts or something just provide fake objectivity. For instance, if a person like amax just put in 10 posts, but provided always good insights/code etc. should he not get access because he didn't hit the x posts mark while another person who had 50 posts in the junk forum or irrelevant posts in others gains access? Personally, I think that spears and coffee are reading enough to get a good picture of the situation.

Statistics: Posted by proud2bBot — Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-15T12:01:45+00:00

Statistics: Posted by Heuristics — Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-14T23:57:02+00:00

spears wrote:

Ingenious. But I'm far from convinced the effort to implement this would be time well spent.

Yea, I can understand that. crowd sourcing promotions could just be a bunch of polls in the level1 area. That's a quick and dirty fix. But the rest would take some time. I though about suggesting we just shut down the public area of this site and all migrate over to stack exchange http://poker.stackexchange.com/ It's basically dead & has effectively nothing about botting so I figure a rapid influx of ~50 pokerbotters and we would basically own the place. New members join that site, if we like them we recruit them for the Level 1 area of poker-ai.org
But that might backfire:
1. I suspect current members on poker stack exchange fall into the 99% of poker players who hate us
2. If we can't sell the recruitment then this site is done. For good.
3. Stack exchange is very well structured and quality threads are permanent. Non contributors get 100% of the benefit. For us that's a problem
4. Stack exchange culture fits well with our intelectual side. which is good. You know what else is good? going balls deep in Jeffs grandma.
5. Stack exchange does not recognize the value in Jeffs grandmother or the topic of going balls deep within her.

Statistics: Posted by northcroft — Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:57 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-13T20:32:51+00:00

I think the idea of the levels... Somewhat contrary to the very notion of a "forum". Structure to levels more logical to call the pyramid.

Statistics: Posted by nefton — Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-13T17:19:47+00:00

I see the idea behind the levels, but I also see it as quite a challenge.

Most papers have been routed out and posted already, any new ones are usually on the site relatively quickly.
Asking for people to contribute a number of papers seems overkill in my opinion.
I agree that only those who have contributed to the forums should be allowed access to the upper level, but maybe this contribution standard should be lowered? If not, this could just mean that fewer and fewer people will gain access to the upper level, reducing the content and reducing the visitors to the site?
For example, a member who's posted 50+ times, a few of these new and intelligent contributions, the rest helping others or asking for help with new ideas, should be promoted. They are clearly devoted, relatively intelligent and committed to the cause. Whereas in the previous forum this would be no where near being allowed into level1.

It can't be too difficult to notice a member who's contributing and posting regularly (not just spamming) and promoting them?
Again, the promoting powers would have to be delegated, but I think this could be a good way.

Just my 2 cents..

PS I do like northcroft's idea too - although it does sound tough to implement, and maybe a few too many levels?

Statistics: Posted by ibot — Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:19 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-13T08:06:41+00:00

Ingenious. But I'm far from convinced the effort to implement this would be time well spent.

Statistics: Posted by spears — Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:06 am

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-13T08:01:30+00:00

I'm curious, what's the big deal. What are or were these levels for at all? Do you even have something to protect? What would talk about at level 1 and up? Share code to make lives easier? Because to me, all information here (at level 0), that's not code, is pretty much disposable. Something that I use just to help to keep my mind in the context. And it's also really everything I need. I can't event think of anything else that I would like to have an access to.

Statistics: Posted by Kratt — Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:01 am

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-13T07:27:53+00:00

Coffee4tw wrote:

... just kidding, but seriously I think this is overkill. All that would accomplish is killing traffic completely. Especially from people that post only very occasionally but are obviously experts in the field, e.g. Sam Ganzfried, Michael Johanson and Tysen Streib, just to name a few. And it would encourage spam from a bunch of idiots too, which in turn requires too much overhead to manage.

exactly this happened and will happen again for the Level1+.
At the other hand, there should be some defined requirements, when and how you can reach Level x oder Level y.
The old system required something like post good input in 50 threads, find 10 papers etc.
But it was very frustrating, at least for me, after reaching the requiremnts, still not getting access to a higher levels. first you had to contact indy which felt like some kind of begging.

In my opinion there is not too much left, you can contribute for level 0. Most of the papers are found etc.
So we have to rethink the old system for leveling up. just my 2 cent.

Statistics: Posted by winnie — Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:27 am

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-13T05:42:43+00:00

tl;dr ... just kidding, but seriously I think this is overkill. All that would accomplish is killing traffic completely. Especially from people that post only very occasionally but are obviously experts in the field, e.g. Sam Ganzfried, Michael Johanson and Tysen Streib, just to name a few. And it would encourage spam from a bunch of idiots too, which in turn requires too much overhead to manage.

northcroft wrote:

You could even delegate final veto | approval of level 4 access someone trustworthy like spears.

I liked that part. A vision of the great things yet to come back in July?

Statistics: Posted by Coffee4tw — Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:42 am

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-13T03:13:44+00:00

Right now there is effectively a binary system whereby zero contribution gets a visitor 90+% of the benefit. Access to information on this site needs to be stratified across different levels. This requires a balance between the value of a levels information and the value of what it will cost members to reach that level (classic supply vs demand). Unfortunately, it's impossible for members to accurately place a value on the next levels information until AFTER they have paid for it. Each member is taking a risk when they try to move up a level. Is the next levels information worth my time and effort? We can't eliminate that risk but, we need to reduce it, a lot. We reduce the buyers risk by lowering the cost of advancing to the next level & we reduce the sellers risk by lowering the value of each levels information. The key to maintaining intellectual standards is that we must increase the total number of (active) levels.
Theory aside, there are at least three practical issues associated with such a system. How much & what information is available in each level? Second who should get access to each level? And third, how the fuck do we implement hundreds of level promotions each year without making the admin quit his day job?

Part 1: how much & what information is available in each level?
Using a content aging system to restrict access to threads would guarantee a certain level of stratification across the levels. For example: public forum is the 15 newest threads (use creation date not date of last post). Level 1 is access to the 30 newest threads, Level 2 is access to the 50 newest threads, & Level 3 the 75 newest. This kind of control is a good way to create low value levels. This works well for quantity control but it is not helpful for quality control.
For quality control we will stick with something similar to the current system. High value threads get moved to higher levels. With a stratified system this can (and should) be done more often. Unfortunately non of this really works with the academic papers. The best I can think of is make your 3 favorite papers publicly available. All other academic papers can be made available at Level 3.
Level 4 on the new system provides identical access that non level 1 members have under the current system.
Level 5 provides identical access to current level 1 members
Level 6 and a few more levels should continue with very high value content & awesome source code

WARNING: If the content ageing system is going to be implemented I would like to point out that any advanced notification will cause some viewers (especially security professionals) to crawl & archive a copy of this site!

Part 2: who should get access to each level?
Under the new system public level, level 1, & level 2 will serve our three largest demographics haters, quitters, & morons. I'm not trying to sound like an ass. The fact is losing players who hate pokerbotters outnumber intelligent dedicated coders by a wide margin. By Level 3 some commitment should be visible. When you see level 4 under a persons name you should be cautiously optimistic about their intelligence. If your level 5+ you don't suck at programing. Specifics are below, the community nomination system is elaborated in part 3:
Level system with content aging and community applications:
Public level:
goal: create non-member interest
requirements: none
content: the 15 most recently created threads & the 3 best academic papers

level 1:
goal: get visitors into the system
requirements: creating a username
content: 30 most recently created threads.
Notice that joining costs 2 minutes of time but rewards you with twice the access

level 2:
goal: get the lurkers to start contributing & the quitters to start quitting
requirements: 10 posts & level 1 member for at least 2 weeks
content=50 most recently created threads

level 3:
goal: start to separate the serious from the stupid
requirements: 25 posts, level 2 member for 2+ weeks.
content=75 most recently created threads, all academic papers, and access to some semi valuable source code maybe the hand equity calculators?

Level 4
goal: quitters have quit, smart people are building creditability, head of casino security starts getting nervous about what his employees are contributing to this site in an attempt to move up our ranks
content:
cumulative archive of all threads.
all academic papers
access to afore mentioned source code
Basically everything that is available to non-level1 members in current system.
requirements: 75 posts, level 3 member for 4+ weeks & nominations by 3 level 4+ members.

Level 5: (equivalent to current level 1 )
goal: smart & committed only. Reduce risk of security professionals joining this form.
requirements: level 4 member for 4+ weeks and one of the following options
option #1: something similar to the current requirements for level 1: 10 very high quality posts in the Poker Papers 50+ posts overall, application & 1 nomination by a level 5+ member
option #2: 150+ posts and peer application approval with 3 nominations by 3 level 5+ members.

Levels 6, 7, 8 to be determined

Level 9:
requirements: majority of your $1,000,000+ income comes from pokerbotting, annual fee of $50,000 (tax deductible), mandatory attendance at our annual week long pokerbotting conference.
content: free ticket to conference
Member fees will be put towards anticipated conference expenses such as:
hotel accommodations, airfare to Hawaii, lectures by ex-casino employees and signals analysts downsized during the arab spring, food, booze, jet ski rentals, strippers, booze for strippers, etc. Too far? Back on topic...

Anyway we would also have to include some sort one time overhall/promotion for existing members to get everything started. Id recommend the following:
members that have not posted in the last 90 days get level 1 access
members with less than 50 posts get level 3 access
member with more then 50 posts get level 4 access (exempted from nomination)
members with level 1 get level 5 access
members with level 2 get level 6 access etc

Part 3: how the fuck do we implement hundreds of level promotions each year without making the admin quit his day job?

In the level system outlined above levels 1, 2, & 3 are easily scripted. Levels 4 & 5 rely mostly on a community application. This application should move the work of evaluating a promotion away from the admin and onto the members & applicant. If standards are set properly the admins work should be reduced to a final approval or veto. You could even delegate final veto | approval of level 4 access someone trustworthy like spears.

APPLICATION PROCESS:
Create a thread in level 3 thread called “level 4 applications” when a level 3 member wants to get access to level 4 they can apply by posting their “application”. Application includes their join date, what requirements they met, links to intelligent posts they made, reference to any of their posts that were bumped to a higher level, and why they should be promoted to level 4.
In level 4 we create a thread called “applications review” where existing level 4+ members would have the opportunity to comment on the application, give applicant their vote of confidence, express concerns about security, lack of intelligence, etc.
In order to keep the application process effective & easy to implement I would recommend a few rules:
1. If application does not get required number of nominations within 7 days the application expires and request is denied. Applicant must wait AT LEAST 14 days from date of original application before reapplying.
2. First level 4 member who notices that an application has expired is obligated to paste some boiler plate rejection into the level 3 application thread. For example: “Unfortunately your application did not received the required number of nominations. Please feel free to re-apply but no sooner then 2 weeks from the date of your last submission”
3. Members can make a max of 2 approval nominations per month (no rollover votes). This will prevent hyperinflation/over approval. The community can self police this as all votes are visible in the thread
4. If required number of members give their vote of approval then the last member to cast vote of approval sends moderator a message for final approval or veto. This member should also make a 1 line post in thread along the lines of “notified modorator via PM that applicant Stan received the required 3 votes from level 4 members Kile, Kenny, & Eric”
5. If a lazy member attempts to circumvent this process by sending moderators a PM they are treated as if their application was just denied. They can reapply in two weeks (=

That's it.

I'm pretty tired so I apologies if this looks a little rough. Also my bad about how long its taken me to get back to you. I've been crazy busy and probably will be until the end of July. If you want to implement this system or something like it; it needs to start with and keep a critical mass of players across the different levels. If members & casino staff find out they are about to lose access to a lot of information they are going to download all the academic papers, mirror the forums, & then jump ship. If they find out after the systems implemented they might complain but in a few weeks the will move up a level and start liking the system. basically you should just tell very senior members & on a need to know basis. Also I understand this is kinda long so please feel free to take your time getting back to me, no pressure.

-Northcroft

Statistics: Posted by northcroft — Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:13 am

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-13T03:13:17+00:00

A long time ago in a land far far away I tried talking Indy into reforming the levels... Epic fail. Next post is a verbatim copy of the (overly ambitious) PM I sent him.
PS “far far away” == http://www.pokerai.org

Statistics: Posted by northcroft — Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:13 am

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-12T07:22:05+00:00

I'm also a fan of KISS, (keep it simple and stupid).
So keep the old usual style/layout with less (sub)forums.

Statistics: Posted by winnie — Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:22 am

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-11T22:46:41+00:00

Kratt wrote:

Hi. Let the posts dictate this. Keep it simple and minimal at first and add structure when it's needed.

I agree. For instance, the legal section is used so rarely, I don't think one needs a sub forum. In general, I personally prefer less forums but active ones.

Statistics: Posted by proud2bBot — Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:46 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-11T19:48:20+00:00

Ideas:
- Open tournament hosting (just for fun). Maybe something like what the PokerAcademy guys used to do with Polaris.
- Live chat?

Statistics: Posted by cantina — Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:48 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-11T18:27:34+00:00

Hi. Let the posts dictate this. Keep it simple and minimal at first and add structure when it's needed.

Statistics: Posted by Kratt — Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:27 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-11T13:28:39+00:00

I agree with above.
I liked the layout of the old site, the sections seemed to work and keep everything organised.
However, there are definitely subsections that could be removed, and from the looks of it haven't had anything posted to them in years either.
So, more or less a cleaner, filtered version of the old forum

Statistics: Posted by ibot — Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:28 pm

Re: Board Structure

2013-03-11T08:55:26+00:00

I think that the old structure shouldn't be copied EXACTLY. But should be strongly inspired. Indeed, the "Open Poker Protocol" is dead since 2009. I don't see any reason to copy it in the new forum, unless people are interested to develop it again. That's the first thing that comes in my head, but there are maybe other examples of cleaning/restructuring.

Statistics: Posted by Romesnil — Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:55 am

Board Structure

2013-03-11T04:58:18+00:00

I'd like to know what people out there think the structure of this forum should be. I think we have a unique opportunity here to rethink the categories that you would like to chat about so please give me your input.

Please vote in the poll and elaborate in posts to this thread.

Edit: This is to satisfy my personal curiosity. We might decide upon a completely different structure that deviates from the majority's opinion if we feel it we feel it would be better for the forum.

Statistics: Posted by Coffee4tw — Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:58 am